Insights into the early stages of plant–endophytic bacteria interaction

Taulé, Cecilia; Vaz-Jauri, Patricia; Battistoni, Federico

doi:10.1007/s11274-020-02966-4

Cited by 51 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 91 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The increase in these microorganisms may have been related to changes in the cell wall caused by the interaction of HSs with these structures. It is known that the microbiota associated with plants are influenced by external and internal factors that modulate the physiological processes of plants (Taulé et al, 2021), such as HSs. Therefore, it is suggested that changes in plant microbiota caused by HSs can improve plant physiological processes.…”

Section: De Haan 1974mentioning

confidence: 99%

Humic Substances in Combination With Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria as an Alternative for Sustainable Agriculture

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) and humic substances (HSs) are promising options for reducing the use of pesticides and mineral fertilizers. Although many studies have shown the effects of PGPB and HSs separately, little information is available on plant responses to the combined application of these biostimulants despite the great potential for the simultaneous action of these biological inputs. Thus, the objective of this review is to present an overview of scientific studies that addressed the application of PGPB and HSs to different crops. First, we discuss the effect of these biostimulants on biological nitrogen fixation, the various effects of the inoculation of beneficial bacteria combined with the application of HSs on promoting the growth of nonleguminous plants and how this combination can increase bacterial colonization of plant hosts. We also address the effect of PGPB and HSs on plant responses to abiotic stresses, in addition to discussing the role of HSs in protecting plants against pathogens. There is a lack of studies that address the role of PGPB + HSs in biocontrol. Understanding the factors involved in the promotion of plant growth through the application of PGPB and HSs can assist in the development of efficient biostimulants for agricultural management. This approach has the potential to accelerate the transition from conventional cultivation to sustainable agrosystems.

show abstract

Section: De Haan 1974mentioning

confidence: 99%

Humic Substances in Combination With Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria as an Alternative for Sustainable Agriculture

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We speculate that the control mechanism of BCAs might be attributed to their effects on phyllosphere microorganisms, both epiphytic and endophytic. Compared with epiphytic microbes, endophytic microbes, which occupy niches within the plant root, stem, and leaf tissues, have higher compatibility with plants, and may greatly influence plant growth and health [ 15 , 16 ]. Recently, a biological control treatment by Methylobacterium sp.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological strategies of biological and chemical control agents on wildfire disease of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.)

Liu

Zhou

et al. 2021

BMC Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To investigate the ecological effects of chemical and biological control methods on tobacco wildfire disease, a plot field experiment was conducted to compare the control efficiency and mechanisms of a chemical pesticide (kasugamycin wettable powder, KWP) and a biological control agent (BCA) through high-throughput sequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA genes. Results The results showed that the BCA displayed better performance in decreasing the disease index and morbidity of tobacco than the chemical pesticide. By monitoring the endophytic community within tobacco leaves, it was found that the control effects of these two methods might be mediated by different changes in the endophytic bacterial communities and community assembly patterns. The application of either method decreased the taxonomic diversity of the leaf endophytic community. Compared to the BCA, KWP showed a more significant effect on the endophytic community structure, while the endophytic community treated with the BCA was able to return to the original state, which presented much lower disease infection. The disease control efficiency of KWP and BCA treatments might be achieved by increasing the abundance of Sphingomonas and Streptophyta, respectively. Furthermore, an analysis of the ecological processes in community assembly indicated that the BCA strengthened the homogeneous and variable selection, while KWP enhanced ecological drift. Conclusions The results suggested different control mechanisms between KWP and BCA treatments, which will help in developing diverse ecological strategies for plant disease control.

show abstract

“…The infection cycle of Xanthomonas spp. starts with an epiphytic phase followed by entering the host plant through natural openings (stomata, hydathodes) and wounds to start its internal colonization (endophytic phase) [ 53 ]. When introduced into the plant surface, xanthomonads use a variety of adhesion strategies to attach to the plant [ 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ].…”

Section: Xanthomonas -Host Plant and Bacteriophage-host Bacterium Interactions And Their Possible Influence On Bacteriophage-basmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bacteriophage-Mediated Control of Phytopathogenic Xanthomonads: A Promising Green Solution for the Future

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Xanthomonads, members of the family Xanthomonadaceae, are economically important plant pathogenic bacteria responsible for infections of over 400 plant species. Bacteriophage-based biopesticides can provide an environmentally friendly, effective solution to control these bacteria. Bacteriophage-based biocontrol has important advantages over chemical pesticides, and treatment with these biopesticides is a minor intervention into the microflora. However, bacteriophages’ agricultural application has limitations rooted in these viruses’ biological properties as active substances. These disadvantageous features, together with the complicated registration process of bacteriophage-based biopesticides, means that there are few products available on the market. This review summarizes our knowledge of the Xanthomonas-host plant and bacteriophage-host bacterium interaction’s possible influence on bacteriophage-based biocontrol strategies and provides examples of greenhouse and field trials and products readily available in the EU and the USA. It also details the most important advantages and limitations of the agricultural application of bacteriophages. This paper also investigates the legal background and industrial property right issues of bacteriophage-based biopesticides. When appropriately applied, bacteriophages can provide a promising tool against xanthomonads, a possibility that is untapped. Information presented in this review aims to explore the potential of bacteriophage-based biopesticides in the control of xanthomonads in the future.

show abstract

Insights into the early stages of plant–endophytic bacteria interaction

Cited by 51 publications

References 91 publications

Humic Substances in Combination With Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria as an Alternative for Sustainable Agriculture

Humic Substances in Combination With Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria as an Alternative for Sustainable Agriculture

Ecological strategies of biological and chemical control agents on wildfire disease of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.)

Bacteriophage-Mediated Control of Phytopathogenic Xanthomonads: A Promising Green Solution for the Future

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About